The Exclusionary Rule
January 15, 2009
The premise of The Exclusionary Rule is the assumption that the Judicial Process can do no wrong. The Exclusionary Rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)) was never the fix it was intended to be. Even less so now (Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006) and Herring v. United States No. 07-513 (2008)) than when it was originally created as Judge made law in 1961. The Exclusionary Rule was intended to provide a citizen, whose rights have been unconstitutionally violated a remedy. And in today’s world that does not happen. There is no remedy for the innocent persons falsely arrested or illegally convicted or denied Due Process of Law. Now if you are a member of politically appealing minority or you have the backing of a politically correct action committee or the police have been flagrant and repeatedly done this to several victims, you might have a case, but if you are a lone victim without a socially or politically appealing case, you have no remedy, you can be victimized by the denial of your “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[1]” and there is NOTHING you can do. Those acting “under color of law[2]” do not have to obey the law, they can flaunt it with the impunity of their Judge decreed immunity. The judges, prosecutors and the police have immunity from criminal and civil prosecution for their actions “under color of law[3].”
The Exclusionary Rule, attempted by force of law to make evidence disappear. The Exclusionary Rule wanted to perform magic. We all would like to be able to perform magic but NOBODY, not even the Supreme Court can perform magic. It is all just slight of hand.
What needs to happen in cases where a citizen’s rights have been violated, the jury needs to be told that the evidence was seized unconstitutionally and for that reason alone they may choose not to consider it, the jury then needs to be given the option of considering the evidence as they see fit. The Judges need to get out of the way.
The law enforcement professional, acting “under color of law[4]”, THEN needs to be prosecuted vigorously criminally and civilly for the crime against our Constitution, the crime against our Civil Rights. There are laws in place to do this Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights. These laws have been on the books since the end of the Civil War in 1871. The Supreme Court has been in essence warring with the constitution on their enforcement since that time.
If we truly want to feel safe in our homes free from unwarranted judicial and/or police action, if we truly believe in fair due process of law, where the defense has a right to compel even the police to testify truthfully to their own procedures and prior sworn testimony and the defense has a right to exculpable material. If we truly believe in the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws[5]” we assert under our constitution, we need to enforce those rights by force of law on all those acting “under color of law[6].”
There is NO REMEDY for the innocent victim of this corruption.
There is NO REMEDY for the innocent victim of this corruption.
There are criminals wearing the Black Robes of the Judiciary. There are criminals illegally and DISHONESTLY persecuting in the name of We the People as our prosecutors. There are criminals wearing the pressed and starched uniforms with the badges of the police. We cannot continue to allow our law enforcement professionals to continue to have the “Free Hand” afforded by the self-serving Judge made law of immunity.
-->“Finally, assuming Bivens' innocence of the crime charged, the "exclusionary rule" is simply irrelevant. For people in Bivens' shoes, it is damages or nothing.”
Thanks in advance,
"Time is of the essence".
David G. Jeep[i]
Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
Dave@DGJeep.com, DGJeep@DGJeep.com
[i] I am an innocent man that stands falsely and illegally convicted. I can prove my innocence and I can prove the violation of my rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, via certified court record. I ask for your consideration of OUR rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws per Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law and Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
